Unformatted text preview: him his right to go where he pleased. b. procedural issue: did the lower court rule correctly. Disposition (judgment): Reversed. Holding: There was no false imprisonment because the Plaintiff had a way out. Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: “There must be restraint within some limits defined by a will or power exterior to our own.” Reasoning: Because the Plaintiff had the freedom to get out of where he was there was no false imprisonment. Concurring/Dissenting Opinions: Dissenting LORD DENMAN: he believed that the plaintiff’s wish to exercise his right of way was obstructed by the company holding the event and thus was imprisoned. Additional Comments/Personal Impressions:...
View Full Document
- Fall '09
- Law, Highway, lower Court, b. procedural issue